ArticleWellcome open research2025
The Problem (and the Value) of Radical Moral Disagreement.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Contemporary societies increasingly face deep, persistent moral conflicts that resist resolution through conventional dialogue and democratic processes. While the conceptual features of moral disagreement have been extensively analysed in philosophy, there has been inadequate attention to the full complexity of moral disagreements as social and cultural phenomena. This paper introduces and analyses the concept of "radical moral disagreement" (RMD) as a phenomenon requiring urgent scholarly attention. Methods: We conducted a conceptual analysis drawing on examples from contemporary moral conflicts including abortion debates, climate action, and pandemic responses. We identified and analysed seven defining characteristics of RMDs through theoretical examination and comparison with moral disagreements of other kinds. We developed a preliminary conceptual framework and outlined research questions spanning philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, and media studies. Results: We identified seven key characteristics that distinguish RMDs from ordinary moral disagreements: collision of incompatible values requiring resolution e.g. in policy decisions, intransigence even under ideal conditions for resolution, emotional intensity that precludes compromise, progressive polarisation of positions, censure that limits public discourse, widespread social disruption, and contested epistemologies regarding evidence and expertise. These characteristics are primarily scalar in nature, suggesting RMDs exist along a continuum rather than as categorical states. We demonstrated that RMDs can arise around a wide range of issues when they become entangled with identity, power, and risk within specific social contexts. Conclusions: RMDs represent complex moral and social phenomena that, while potentially destabilising social cohesion and democratic governance, may also catalyse moral progress when properly understood and navigated. The paper describes a theoretical foundation for studying RMDs and outlines relevant research questions requiring attention, spanning philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, and media studies. We propose that understanding RMDs is essential for developing effective approaches to coexistence in pluralistic yet polarised societies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.